Evidence of design .... ?

Your suggestion of alternate function is the key to Behe's downfall, since he assumes that an IC system has to have always served its current purpose. There is every indication, for example, that the bacterial flagellum originated from the improvement of a secretory system (presumably also the ancestor of the TTSS, to judge by protein homology) that offered the bacterium a motility that could provide selective advantage. The subsequent modifications to the system have produced an undeniably impressive structure for movement from a system originally used for a completely different purpose. I always keep this principle in mind when assessing claims of Intelligent Agency for natural phenomena.

I thought I was the only one baffled by the 'insight' of some of the folks here. I guess Syd Barrett has to do something while waiting for the latest biographer to show up.------------------
"Do not proffer sympathy to the mentally ill. It is a bottomless pit."
-William S. Burroughs

Behe even mentioned the panda's thumb in 'Darwin's Black Box,' and tried to counter a lot of the arguments in the pop-science literature concerning sub-optimal design. What it boiled down to was that we know how to detect Design because we know how a Designer would design something, but we can't be sure how the Designer wouldn't design something.If I understand this correctly (and I'm not saying I do), it's saying that only Intelligent Design Creationists are allowed to assume the Designer's intentions.

quote:

---

The flaws in my car are everywhere.

---

At least it's still going somewhere, unlike your argument.

quote:

---

Then again, I suppose what constitutes a flaw depends on one’s idealistic expectations.

---

I wonder why we're supposed to be 'idealistic' enough to conclude that life displays a grand design, but not enough to expect that the design would be grand.As Peter pointed out, the design of our shared trachea/esophagus makes sense and is impressive in the context of evolutionary biology, since the structure is derived from our forebears the lungfish, who had to swallow air in order to 'breathe' out of water. It's no testament to the foresight of an Intelligent Intervener.

quote:

---

The problem with the flaw argument is that it has a built-in moving goalpost.

---

The same can be said of the "design" argument. We're never allowed to regard biological structures as such, and decide on any independent terms whether they betray an evolutionary design history or offer evidence of ID. Intelligent Design advocates have to be excused for always talking in terms of cars, mousetraps, and other man-made machines, since analogies have to suffice in lieu of any scientific support for their hypothesis.[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 06-30-2003]

quote:

---

Yet I can think of advantages to this arrangement

---

I think you misinterpreted our objections. The trachea/esophagus arrangement was indeed advantageous to the lungfish from whom we inherited it. Every 'advantage' you listed in defense of the arrangement is perfectly consistent with the evolution of the human throat within the constraints of its inherited framework.However, what we are trying to establish is whether this arrangement has advantages over and above all other conceivable designs, which would certainly be more persuasive evidence of Intelligence. We have a plausible explanation for the structure, advantages, and shortcomings of the design. You merely assume that it's a product of Intelligence based on the fact that it's 'pretty darn safe'?

quote:

---

I am not arguing that the system (or human body) is designed.

---

Really? I am. This system, along with the rest of the 'humanoid' body, is a product of millions of years of evolution. The design work was done step-by-step within the constraints of the pre-existing system. You're the only one arguing over the effect of 'improvements' to the system. All we're saying is that this is the structure we expect to see in organisms who evolved from lungfish.The evidence for evolution is in precisely these anomalies, which were inherited from our forebears. The trachea/esophagus system is impressive in that context. Your attempts to rationalize the ingenuity of its design in any other context are both irrelevant and comical.

1) Cars, chainsaws, mousetraps, and various other man-made artifacts can be compared to biological systems in order to support the hypothesis of Intelligent Design. However, evolutionists aren't allowed to compare the same artifacts to biological systems in order to point out problems in the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.2) Various objections to the hypothesis of Intelligent Design should be judged against each other rather than considered separately. This way evolution has to show consistency and uniformity and not the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.3) Accuse the evolutionists of raw speculation, and demand detailed eyewitness evidence of any of its claims, even if it concerns ancient biology. Try not to mention that raw speculation is the basis of the hypothesis of Intelligent Design.4) Equivocate. Flunk math. Claim victory.

That's another good point. Even in made-made designs there is less 'creation' than the IDC'ers would have us believe. Would Behe seriously assert that the metal ore extracted from the ground, the tree chopped down and milled, and even the cheese fermented from animal milk, were all 'intended' to be used in mousetrap production?

quote:

---

So does this mean that we can now say that even "intelligent design" uses evolution?

---

Behe would insist that only IDC is allowed to use the mousetrap analogy. It's unfair of Darwinists to appropriate such devices and use them for our own purposes. It smacks of, you know, evolution.